Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

His life, his examples and his psychology
User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by The Cat »

Reference:
viewtopic.php?p=158020#p158020" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
skynightblaze wrote:There is no proof that quran has been corroborated enough.
Read again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Qur'an" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
At Medina, about forty companions are believed to have acted as scribes for the Qur'an. Twenty-two such persons are mentioned
by name in the Hadith. Among them were well known persons, such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ibn Masud, Abu Huraira, Abdullah
bin Abbas, Abdullah bin Amr bin al-As, Aisha, Hafsa and Umm Salama....

The task required ibn Thabit to collect written copies of the Qur'an, with each verse having validated with the oral testimony of at least
two companions. Usually the written copies were verified by himself and Umar...
Forty scribes, of which 22 are mentioned by name in the Hadith, each verse validated by the oral testimony of at least 2 companions.
Themselves supervised by Thabit and Umar! That's not enough corroborated for SNB, stating that the ahaad hadiths are more reliable!
skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote:How come that the long researched Muwatta of Ibn Malik ignores the so-called 'sahih' hadiths?
The above claim is false. malik Muwatta was considered by Bukhari. I had showed you a link from answering islam before.
Another proof that you understand nihil. It's the other way around... Read again:
It's the previous well searched Muwatta that completely ignores Bukhari's hadiths. Thus they were forged later... Get it now?
skynightblaze wrote:Rest of your post is repetition and I think I have already addressed them and it makes no sense to repeat the same arguments.
That's the Muslims usual dismissive attitude when cornered, you sound exactly like AB!

Skipping the following
1) The Chinese Whispers debunk 200 years of 'reliable' oral transmissions.
2) + The criteria of mutawatir and of two witnesses (2.282; 5.106; 65.2)
3) + Their absence from the former, years-searched, Muwatta of Malik.
3) All of the above are proving the unreliability of the 'sahih' hadiths.

4) In defying the example of Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar and Ibn Thabit followed their conscience to collect the Koran.
They didn't follow his example. Thus, Muslims are too to follow their conscience first.

5) Raiding and looting was a custom -for all nomads in general-, thus you've indulged in the fallacy of Presentism.
And relying on yet another fallacy (Moving the goalposts) doesn't help your case at all.

6) A pervert Muhammad (93.7) cast no example, except in 'looking forward unto Allah' (33.21) and obeying The Messenger (ie. Gabriel).

7) The Shahada goes directly against many Koranic injunctions (3.84; 18.110). Thus 1st 'pillar of Islam' is definitively not Koranic.

8) From 4.105 and 5.44-49 we learn that Muhammad had to judge Jews and Christians,
according to their own scripture, along with bringing the new one, ie. the Koran (2.151).

9) Muslims are to obey all prophets alike. Yet no messenger has much importance by its own self, none (3.84; 18.110).

Note: The 'honest scholars' of tafsirs all went against 3.7 in attempts to biased the Koran.
Ex.: In the tafsir of 31.6 they sweared that 'lahwa al-hadeethi' meant music and not idle tales.
ie. their own tafsirs, + hadiths.


Thanks to people like snb and MbL this site is developing the same mentality as Sunnite's.
Two sides of the same dismissive clan/clowns attitude.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

Cat, you can just keep speaking to SNB and dismiss what I say by not responding, but your inability to address the points I made speaks volumes. You have no answers to what I said. So what is anybody supposed to think?? Why shouldn't anyone see you as a manipulative charlatan?
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

Skenderbeg
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:45 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Skenderbeg »

The Cat wrote:
Skenderbeg wrote: 1) Just like the Quran was collected by Mohammed's followers after his death so were hadiths
2) FROM THE QURAN - 4:24
3) Most hadiths are in line with the Quran
1) Koran was memorized first hand, almost on the spot. Hadiths were collected in earnest two centuries after.
Ever heard of the Chinese Whispers' demonstration?

2) Slavery isn't anymore. Right hand possessions were superseded by common sense, thus updating the Koran.

3) Wrong. Many hadiths contradict their holy book, let alone contradicting themselves.
See for example: http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ ... _quran.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No one could have remembered the Quran totally not withstanding all the lies we read from Muslims. The first Quran's were burned destroyed because they were different from each other, the Quran Muslims read today are from the time of Uthman, why would he burn the earliest known Qurans? if they were word for word the same ? and we supposed to believe Allah gave Muslims the "perfect book" and yet the first ones were destroyed because they were different from each other, or he wouldn't have burned the first Qurans, now we have a corrupted Quran, not even seen by Mohmammed.

Why did Mohammed die before there was a total complete Quran for him to sign off on as original from Allah ? Muslims like attacking Christians and Jews for "corrupting" their holy books and yet its their Quran which was corrupted from the very beginning. Muslims never saved a single page of the earliest Qurans why not ? yet we are told by Muslims they have a complete books on earth that's the same as the supposed Quran in heaven, They have a book written years after Mohammed's death by uthman.
Cat says.
2) Slavery isn't anymore. Right hand possessions were superseded by common sense, thus updating the Koran.
That's just not true it might be your wishful thinking but the Quran can't be changed. if a Muslims army invaded none Muslims country Muslim men would be within their Islamic rights to take female slaves and married women as sex slaves and never feel they are doing anything wrong because Allah gave Muslim men permission to rape girls and married women for all times.
Cat says 3) Wrong. Many hadiths contradict their holy book, let alone contradicting themselves
.

Same thing with the Quran it contradicts itself many times here are some examples.
Surah 2:62 "Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."
Do they not consider the Koran with care, If it had been from anyone other than Allah, it would contain many discrepancies (Koran 4:82)."

Here are so more nice verses in the Quran towards Christians..but later they get attacked along with Jews..
[5:82] You will find that the worst enemies of the believers are the Jews and the idol worshipers. And you will find that the closest people in friendship to the believers are those who say, "We are Christian." This is because they have priests and monks among them, and they are not arrogant.
The Quran contradicts itself ..
9:123: "O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).
"

:
29: "Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute [jizya tax] readily, being brought low."
So now its fight those Christians and Jews who don't believe in the message of Mohammed even though they follow God its just not Mohammeds God they follow, so Mohammed and the Quran went back on their nice words about Christians and jews being good and not having to worry because they will be rewarded in heaven, you see you really can't trust anything you read in the Quran, just when you think you find something nice look a little further and it goes away and replaced with kill them, fight them, oppress them.

I think Mohammed had a bad memory and didn't remember what he said from one day to the other, if God wrote the Quran it would not be so insane and crazy and full of contradictions as the above showed, or that Allah created men so he could burn them forever, he made none believers and closed their hearts then says he will burn them with hot boiling water in hell :cry:

Multiple
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 8:58 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Multiple »

yeezevee wrote:Fascinating to read Mr. Multiple
Multiple wrote at
I too am a former White Convert although my conversion was for a far more prosaic reason than a search for truth. In my case it was for a woman I wanted to marry and in the Country in which we were living people of different faiths were not allowed to marry . So being a generous sort of guy and completely naive regarding Islam and being a sort of non religious moonbat I went ahead and converted.
Spoiler! :
Imagine my surprise then when a work colleague , a Syrian Muslim Engineer, who was so delighted by my conversion brought me an English Translation copy of the Koran. This is when I woke up. Being an avid reader I read it, or rather attempted to read the violent, antisemitic, misogynistic, turgid , repetitive, self contradictory, Arab Supremacist nonsense that comprises the Koran. That was the end of my flirtation with Islam I woke up and smelled the coffee. It was also the end of my marriage too not because of Islam because she turned into deceitful money grabbing lying Dragon Lady she cost me a fortune .
I have now remarried , to another Muslima but one who knows my feelings about Islam and is tolerant enough to deal with it.
and multiple writes in this thread
Multiple wrote:then he means ALL animals in the World, after all he created ALL the animals in the world (unless of course if you are Iffo when in his case this ALL means those animals in Pakistan only :roflmao: ). But sadly Iffo's ignorant uneducated inability to understand and comprehend the English language
Multiple wrote:It was also the subject of incredible amounts of HEARSAY ( come on Muslims try to PROVE that this is not so)
Multiple wrote: The fact that after 1400 years the Koran does not have a universally accepted translation and interpretation completely repudiates its claims to be 'clear and easy to understand' and it being 'a book for ALL men for ALL time' and if these claims it makes for itself are so demonstrably untrue then the whole edifice of Islam is untrue and we should not be discussing the semantic nuances of a religion just the self justifications of followers of a CULT and should treat it and its adherents in an appropriate manner.
Multiple wrote:iffo the Koran praises Mohammad who marries a 6 year old girl and consummated his marriage with her when he was 50 years old and she was 9. Also Mohammedans are told to try and emulate Mohammad the 'perfect man' . So we are correct in assuming Islam supports paedophilia and Christianity does not.
Multiple wrote: . The Mohammedan God is an evil , self contradictory, illogical, violent,misogynistic, vengeful , antisemitic, Arab supremacist God (its all in the Koran) totally unlike the Christian and Jewish God.

Multiple wrote:
kerenabiz you forgot to add that Churches in Egypt, Indonesia, Nigeria, Algeria, Tunisia are constantly being vandalised and burnt down. So much for Islamic 'tolerance' . New Churches of course are almost impossible to build and even repairs to damaged Churches is made extremely difficult.
greetings and my good wishes to you Mr. Multiple., After reading few posts of yours in this thread I read most of your 20 pages of posts., you write so well and so well informed about Islam members like you are an asset to forums like FFI. I am not very active here but may I suggest you that the value your posts will at least 10 times higher without those RED COLORED WORDS. You know well that Islam is an ideology(religious/political/cultish..whatever) Where as Muslims are people.. Pakistanis are people.., I am sure you write in to ffi to educate the readers, Muslims and non Muslims about Islam But I wonder throwing insults at Muslims and Pakistan helps your cause.. whatever that cause may be..

with best wishes
yeezevee
yeezevee thanks for your good wishes. But regarding your suggestion that I omit mentioning Pakistan and Pakistanis here are my reasons for doing so. Iffo is a Pakistani and his ridiculous claims for God and Noah was thus exampled by his home state, my other references to Pakistan arise from Pakistan's preeminent place as a generator , supporter and safe haven for Mohammedan Terrorist scum and also Pakistanis immigrants dominant position as the worst and most corrupt abusers of the UK's social welfare system. It is not me vilifying Pakistan but Pakistanis bringing this disrespect on THEMSELVES by their actions. BTW asking a Mohammedan to PROVE their outrageous claims is not something to be denigrated rather it should be encouraged it just exposes them for the lying, illogical HYPOCRITES that they are.
Banned.

Multiple
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 8:58 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Multiple »

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:@Mbl

Opinions of scholars will be disregarded by these quran alone muslims. They will claim that quran doesnt say so and ofcourse it has no basis at all .

The Quran DOES say so in the case of the Quibla. It acknowledges it's changing the prayer direction and then uses the stupid excuse that it is merely a test.
skynightblaze wrote: I would trust an early muslim scholar because he knew better than any of us as he was close to Muhammad. EVen the tafsir of Ibn abbas would document this abrogation. Now Ibn abbas lived during Muhammads time.
Of course.
skynightblaze wrote: There is one more point here. Quran never explicitly said that quran was an exception to this verse of abrogation. The verse merely says we abrogate our communications and since quran is also an communication of Allah hence this verse by default would also be applicable to quran.
That's why the honest scholars understood it that way and why it is even proven in the case of the quibla where the Quran even acknowledges it's doing this.
Yep Old Mo was a primitive 7th Century warlord but he knew he was dealing with Primitive Arabs who were not as savvy as him when it came to devious political moves purely designed to preserve and advance HIS power over them and his PROFITS from them. Looked at in this light the Koran makes perfect sense a constantly changing message deigned to fit the purpose at the time it is "REVEALED??" then to be disregarded when another imperative makes a flip flop more advantageous and THAT explains ABROGATION to a T.
Banned.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

The Cat wrote:
Skynightblaze wrote:
There is no proof that quran has been corroborated enough.
Read again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Qur'an" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At Medina, about forty companions are believed to have acted as scribes for the Qur'an. Twenty-two such persons are mentioned
by name in the Hadith. Among them were well known persons, such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ibn Masud, Abu Huraira, Abdullah
bin Abbas, Abdullah bin Amr bin al-As, Aisha, Hafsa and Umm Salama....

The task required ibn Thabit to collect written copies of the Qur'an, with each verse having validated with the oral testimony of at least
two companions. Usually the written copies were verified by himself and Umar...

Forty scribes, of which 22 are mentioned by name in the Hadith, each verse validated by the oral testimony of at least 2 companions.
Themselves supervised by Thabit and Umar! That's not enough corroborated for SNB, stating that the ahaad hadiths are more reliable!
I am going to annihilate(I really mean it) this crap argument first before replying to the rest of your so called rebuttals.

First of all Umar and Thabit didn't know the complete quran. They hadn't memorized each and every single verse of the quran and hence they cant be taken as persons who can vouch for authenticity of quran and hence their supervision is not trustworthy. I shall prove that below...

Secondly where are the 2 witnesses for 9:128-129? One corrupted verse is sufficient to annihilate the claim that quran is anywhere near reliability. If its corrupt then its not the word of GOd and its muhammad speaking all the way and follow Allah automatically translates to following Muhammad.!

More ever we shall see that there existed variants between Thabit's quran and quran most trustworthy people considered by Muhammad himself!! This will demolish your claim that the isnad of quran are reliable!! Even the teachers of quran chosen by Muhammad rejected THABITS QURAN(THE PRESENT DAY QURAN) :D My sources are answering islam.


Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 521

Narrated Masriq:
Abdullah bin ‘Amr mentioned ‘Abdullah bin Masud and said, “I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, ‘Take (learn) the Qur'an from four: 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b.’”



See the four persons mentioned here from whom quran should be listened according to Muhammad doesnt even include Zaid bin Thabit so UMAR BASICALLY SELECTED A WRONG SOURCE FOR COLLECTING THE PRESENT DAY QURAN.!!!!!!!!

Now lets see what a horrible mistake Umar committed as far as collection of quran is concerned.....


Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 6, Number 527


Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: 'Umar said, “Ubai was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur'an) yet we leave some of what he recites.” Ubai says, “I have taken it from the mouth of Allah's Apostle and will not leave for anything whatever.” …

Lo! Quran is not from sources which Muhammad thought were genuine! Those sources were ignored .

So Umar made a mistake of not including the verses from Ubai who was considered as the best teacher of quran by Muhammad :D . Now I shall show quotes which prove beyond a doubt as to why umar was wrong in selecting Thabit as the source of quran... The above mentioned people whom muhammad considered as the best of quranic teachers disagreed with Thabits quran..

Here is what Ibn Masud which is mentioned as the one of top knowledgeable persons of quran had to say regarding Thabit's quran...


(Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.444)

'The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur'an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth".

Here are the differences in Thabit and Ubayy ibn Ka'ab 's quran. Note that Ubayy was considered to be more reliable than Thabit even by Muhammad!

Please click the spoiler for more drama..
Spoiler! :
Surah 33:6, in the ZSE (Zaid Standard Edition of the Qur'an), reads as follows:

The Prophet is closer
To the Believers than
Their own selves,
And his wives are
Their mothers. Blood-relations
Among each other have
Closer personal ties,
In the Decree of Allah,
Than (the Brotherhood of)
Believers and Muhajirs:
Nevertheless do ye
What is just to your
Closest friends: such is
The writing of the Decree
(Of Allah).


In his popular translation of the Qur'an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali adds the following note.

In spiritual relationships the Prophet is entitled to more respect and consideration than blood-relations. The Believers should follow him rather than their fathers or mothers or brothers, where there is conflict of duties. He is even nearer--closer to our real interests--than our own selves. In some Qira'ahs, like that of Ubayy ibn Ka'ab, occur also the words "and he is a father of them", which imply his spiritual relationship and connection with the words "and his wives are their mothers". Thus his spiritual fatherhood would be contrasted pointedly with the repudiation of the vulgar superstition of calling any one like Zayd ibn Harthah by the appellation Zayd ibn Muhammad (33:40): such an application is really disrespectful to the Prophet.


Thus, according to Ubayy ibn Ka'b (one of Muhammad's top reciters), the Zaid Standard Edition is missing the words "and he is a father of them." Ali even notes that other Qira'ahs agreed with Ubayy's! (Ali also seems to find Ubayy's version more theologically satisfying.)
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/02 ... ab-on.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now lets see From Bukhari's ahadith what Ibn Masud another top narrator of quran according to Muhammad had to say about the order compiled by Thabit(the present day quran). The quote below is from answering islam.
.
Spoiler! :
Interestingly, the same hadiths claim that Ibn Masud also read verses differently from that which we find today:

Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 468; s
Narrated Alqama:
I went to Sham and was offering a two-Rak'at prayer; I said, "O Allah! Bless me with a (pious) companion." Then I saw an old man coming towards me, and when he came near I said, (to myself), "I hope Allah has given me my request." The man asked (me), "Where are you from?" I replied, "I am from the people of Kufa." He said, "Weren't there amongst you the Carrier of the (Prophet's) shoes, Siwak and the ablution water container? Weren't there amongst you the man who was given Allah's Refuge from the Satan? And weren't there amongst you the man who used to keep the (Prophet's) secrets which nobody else knew? How did Ibn Um 'Abd (i.e. 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud) use to recite Surat-al-lail (the Night:92)?" I recited:--

"By the Night as it envelops By the Day as it appears in brightness. And by male and female." (92.1-3) On that, Abu Darda said, "BY ALLAH, the Prophet made me read the Verse in this way after listening to him, but these people (of Sham) TRIED THEIR BEST to let me say something different."

(Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 105)

Narrated Ibrahim:
The companions of 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) came to Abu Darda', (and before they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found them. Then he asked them,: "Who among you can recite (Qur'an) as 'Abdullah recites it?" They replied, "All of us." He asked, "Who among you knows it by heart?" They pointed at 'Alqama. Then he asked Alqama. "How did you hear 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud reciting Surat Al-Lail (The Night)?" Alqama recited:

‘By the male and the female.’ Abu Ad-Darda said, "I TESTIFY that I heard the Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me to recite it:--

‘And by Him Who created male and female.’ BUT BY ALLAH, I WILL NOT FOLLOW THEM."
(

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Me ... bc_add.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Lets see one more quote...
Jami At-Tirmidhi 3104
--Az-Zuhri said: "Ubaidullah bin Abdullah bin Utbah informed me that Abdullah bin Mas'ud disliked Zaid bin Thabit copying the Musahif, and he said: 'O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man'--meaning Zaid bin Thabit--and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: 'O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement. So meet Allah with the Musahif.'"

Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 515:

Narrated Yusuf bin Mahk:

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 515:

Narrated Yusuf bin Mahk:

While I was with Aisha, the mother of the Believers, a person from Iraq came and asked, "What type of shroud is the best?" 'Aisha said, "May Allah be merciful to you! What does it matter?" He said, "O mother of the Believers! Show me (the copy of) your Qur'an," She said, "Why?" He said, "In order to compile and arrange the Qur'an according to it, for people recite it with its Suras not in proper order." '


People at that time didn't have the correct knowledge of the order of quran.

How can quran pass the test of 2 witnesses if the muslims of that time themselves disagreed about the order of the quran? where are the multiple witnesses which you keep on asking for ahadith for a perfect order of the quran?? Remember order of surahs is important because a change in order can alter the meaning. More ever quran claims itself to be word to word recitation of GOd and hence changing the order would mean changing God's words!


More ever CAT what do you have to say about verses of stoning??? Where are they ?? In ahadith verses related to stoning are mentioned to be part of quran more than 2 times. So we have more than 2 witnesses confirming that verse of stoning existed in the quran but today we no longer see that verse..Even Umar himself whom you are trusting here said that the verse related to stoning existed in the quran.

I will post more proofs as I study more this topic.

SO CAT HERE GOES DOWN THE DRAIN YOUR CLAIM THAT QURAN"S ISNAD BEING SOUND!!!! :down:
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

Multiple
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 8:58 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Multiple »

skynightblaze wrote:
The Cat wrote:
Skynightblaze wrote:
There is no proof that quran has been corroborated enough.
Read again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Qur'an" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At Medina, about forty companions are believed to have acted as scribes for the Qur'an. Twenty-two such persons are mentioned
by name in the Hadith. Among them were well known persons, such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ibn Masud, Abu Huraira, Abdullah
bin Abbas, Abdullah bin Amr bin al-As, Aisha, Hafsa and Umm Salama....

The task required ibn Thabit to collect written copies of the Qur'an, with each verse having validated with the oral testimony of at least
two companions. Usually the written copies were verified by himself and Umar...

Forty scribes, of which 22 are mentioned by name in the Hadith, each verse validated by the oral testimony of at least 2 companions.
Themselves supervised by Thabit and Umar! That's not enough corroborated for SNB, stating that the ahaad hadiths are more reliable!
I am going to annihilate(I really mean it) this crap argument first before replying to the rest of your so called rebuttals.

First of all Umar and Thabit didn't know the complete quran. They hadn't memorized each and every single verse of the quran and hence they cant be taken as persons who can vouch for authenticity of quran and hence their supervision is not trustworthy. I shall prove that below...

Secondly where are the 2 witnesses for 9:128-129? One corrupted verse is sufficient to annihilate the claim that quran is anywhere near reliability. If its corrupt then its not the word of GOd and its muhammad speaking all the way and follow Allah automatically translates to following Muhammad.!

More ever we shall see that there existed variants between Thabit's quran and quran most trustworthy people considered by Muhammad himself!! This will demolish your claim that the isnad of quran are reliable!! Even the teachers of quran chosen by Muhammad rejected THABITS QURAN(THE PRESENT DAY QURAN) :D My sources are answering islam.


Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 521

Narrated Masriq:
Abdullah bin ‘Amr mentioned ‘Abdullah bin Masud and said, “I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, ‘Take (learn) the Qur'an from four: 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b.’”



See the four persons mentioned here from whom quran should be listened according to Muhammad doesnt even include Zaid bin Thabit so UMAR BASICALLY SELECTED A WRONG SOURCE FOR COLLECTING THE PRESENT DAY QURAN.!!!!!!!!

Now lets see what a horrible mistake Umar committed as far as collection of quran is concerned.....


Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 6, Number 527


Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: 'Umar said, “Ubai was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur'an) yet we leave some of what he recites.” Ubai says, “I have taken it from the mouth of Allah's Apostle and will not leave for anything whatever.” …

Lo! Quran is not from sources which Muhammad thought were genuine! Those sources were ignored .

So Umar made a mistake of not including the verses from Ubai who was considered as the best teacher of quran by Muhammad :D . Now I shall show quotes which prove beyond a doubt as to why umar was wrong in selecting Thabit as the source of quran... The above mentioned people whom muhammad considered as the best of quranic teachers disagreed with Thabits quran..

Here is what Ibn Masud which is mentioned as the one of top knowledgeable persons of quran had to say regarding Thabit's quran...


(Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.444)

'The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur'an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth".

Here are the differences in Thabit and Ubayy ibn Ka'ab 's quran. Note that Ubayy was considered to be more reliable than Thabit even by Muhammad!

Please click the spoiler for more drama..
Spoiler! :
Surah 33:6, in the ZSE (Zaid Standard Edition of the Qur'an), reads as follows:

The Prophet is closer
To the Believers than
Their own selves,
And his wives are
Their mothers. Blood-relations
Among each other have
Closer personal ties,
In the Decree of Allah,
Than (the Brotherhood of)
Believers and Muhajirs:
Nevertheless do ye
What is just to your
Closest friends: such is
The writing of the Decree
(Of Allah).


In his popular translation of the Qur'an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali adds the following note.

In spiritual relationships the Prophet is entitled to more respect and consideration than blood-relations. The Believers should follow him rather than their fathers or mothers or brothers, where there is conflict of duties. He is even nearer--closer to our real interests--than our own selves. In some Qira'ahs, like that of Ubayy ibn Ka'ab, occur also the words "and he is a father of them", which imply his spiritual relationship and connection with the words "and his wives are their mothers". Thus his spiritual fatherhood would be contrasted pointedly with the repudiation of the vulgar superstition of calling any one like Zayd ibn Harthah by the appellation Zayd ibn Muhammad (33:40): such an application is really disrespectful to the Prophet.


Thus, according to Ubayy ibn Ka'b (one of Muhammad's top reciters), the Zaid Standard Edition is missing the words "and he is a father of them." Ali even notes that other Qira'ahs agreed with Ubayy's! (Ali also seems to find Ubayy's version more theologically satisfying.)
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/02 ... ab-on.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now lets see From Bukhari's ahadith what Ibn Masud another top narrator of quran according to Muhammad had to say about the order compiled by Thabit(the present day quran). The quote below is from answering islam.
.
Spoiler! :
Interestingly, the same hadiths claim that Ibn Masud also read verses differently from that which we find today:

Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 468; s
Narrated Alqama:
I went to Sham and was offering a two-Rak'at prayer; I said, "O Allah! Bless me with a (pious) companion." Then I saw an old man coming towards me, and when he came near I said, (to myself), "I hope Allah has given me my request." The man asked (me), "Where are you from?" I replied, "I am from the people of Kufa." He said, "Weren't there amongst you the Carrier of the (Prophet's) shoes, Siwak and the ablution water container? Weren't there amongst you the man who was given Allah's Refuge from the Satan? And weren't there amongst you the man who used to keep the (Prophet's) secrets which nobody else knew? How did Ibn Um 'Abd (i.e. 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud) use to recite Surat-al-lail (the Night:92)?" I recited:--

"By the Night as it envelops By the Day as it appears in brightness. And by male and female." (92.1-3) On that, Abu Darda said, "BY ALLAH, the Prophet made me read the Verse in this way after listening to him, but these people (of Sham) TRIED THEIR BEST to let me say something different."

(Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 105)

Narrated Ibrahim:
The companions of 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) came to Abu Darda', (and before they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found them. Then he asked them,: "Who among you can recite (Qur'an) as 'Abdullah recites it?" They replied, "All of us." He asked, "Who among you knows it by heart?" They pointed at 'Alqama. Then he asked Alqama. "How did you hear 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud reciting Surat Al-Lail (The Night)?" Alqama recited:

‘By the male and the female.’ Abu Ad-Darda said, "I TESTIFY that I heard the Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me to recite it:--

‘And by Him Who created male and female.’ BUT BY ALLAH, I WILL NOT FOLLOW THEM."
(

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Me ... bc_add.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Lets see one more quote...
Jami At-Tirmidhi 3104
--Az-Zuhri said: "Ubaidullah bin Abdullah bin Utbah informed me that Abdullah bin Mas'ud disliked Zaid bin Thabit copying the Musahif, and he said: 'O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man'--meaning Zaid bin Thabit--and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: 'O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement. So meet Allah with the Musahif.'"

Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 515:

Narrated Yusuf bin Mahk:

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 515:

Narrated Yusuf bin Mahk:

While I was with Aisha, the mother of the Believers, a person from Iraq came and asked, "What type of shroud is the best?" 'Aisha said, "May Allah be merciful to you! What does it matter?" He said, "O mother of the Believers! Show me (the copy of) your Qur'an," She said, "Why?" He said, "In order to compile and arrange the Qur'an according to it, for people recite it with its Suras not in proper order." '


People at that time didn't have the correct knowledge of the order of quran.

How can quran pass the test of 2 witnesses if the muslims of that time themselves disagreed about the order of the quran? where are the multiple witnesses which you keep on asking for ahadith for a perfect order of the quran?? Remember order of surahs is important because a change in order can alter the meaning. More ever quran claims itself to be word to word recitation of GOd and hence changing the order would mean changing God's words!


More ever CAT what do you have to say about verses of stoning??? Where are they ?? In ahadith verses related to stoning are mentioned to be part of quran more than 2 times. So we have more than 2 witnesses confirming that verse of stoning existed in the quran but today we no longer see that verse..Even Umar himself whom you are trusting here said that the verse related to stoning existed in the quran.

I will post more proofs as I study more this topic.

SO CAT HERE GOES DOWN THE DRAIN YOUR CLAIM THAT QURAN"S ISNAD BEING SOUND!!!! :down:
Dont forget SNB you can judge the reliability and judgement of The Cat by the fact that he?/it? just LURVES Obambi.
Banned.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

Multiple wrote:Dont forget SNB you can judge the reliability and judgement of The Cat by the fact that he?/it? just LURVES Obambi.
Can you unquote me? It becomes troublesome to scroll down the page. Anyway I am starting to think that he is really a charlatan playing Taqiyya here.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

Multiple
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 8:58 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Multiple »

Multiple wrote:Dont forget SNB you can judge the reliability and judgement of The Cat by the fact that he?/it? just LURVES Obambi.
Consider yourself unquotable SNB.
Banned.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

Multiple wrote:
Multiple wrote:Dont forget SNB you can judge the reliability and judgement of The Cat by the fact that he?/it? just LURVES Obambi.
Consider yourself unquotable SNB.
???? I was referring to the lengthy post of mine which you quoted. The page is unnecessarily becoming long and thats why I asked if you could remove my quote from your post. Just edit your post and erase what I wrote.
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

Multiple wrote: Dont forget SNB you can judge the reliability and judgement of The Cat by the fact that he?/it? just LURVES Obambi.
He claims that common sense allows us to reinterpret the letter for letter dictation of God given as specific instruction to make things clear for all mankind for all times. Somehow, he sees no contradiction in that. So since modern sensibilities go against the idea of slavery, then slavery in the Quran is no longer relevant. I really don't know why he doesn't simply write his own Quran. What sort of desperation can cause someone to lie to themselves like this?
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

SNB wrote: Quran is an obvious lie and the only miracle of quran is that people can dare to believe that its really from God even after reading it!
You see, it works like this. If one believes the Quran comes from God before they read it, they will clearly see that it comes from God when they read it. So one needs to believe it is from God before one can see that it comes from God. So if one reads the Quran and doesn't believe it comes from God, that's because they didn't believe it comes from God and therefore misread it. :crazy:
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by The Cat »

Skenderbeg wrote:No one could have remembered the Quran totally
So it was assembled through a wide collectorate, if you look above.
Skenderbeg wrote:
The Cat wrote:Slavery isn't anymore. Right hand possessions were superseded by common sense, thus updating the Koran.
That's just not true it might be your wishful thinking but the Quran can't be changed.
That slavery isn't recognized anymore in the Islamic world is a fact no one can deny... It's there!

Although mentioned in the Koran, you'd have to prove that physical slavery therein is condone for all time.

It's contrary to 49.13:
O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another.

But that's an interesting topic deserving a thread of its own...
Skenderbeg wrote:The Quran it contradicts itself many times
I don't see contradictions between 2.62/5.82 and 9.29/123. The difference is in arrogance, the one not keeping treaties.
About the People of the Book, the Koran makes a distinction between those who rightly follow their holy books and those who
take words out of context to form their own sects. Yet, the same thing happened in Islam through the tafsirs and hadiths...
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by The Cat »

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:your inability to address the points I made speaks volumes. You have no answers to what I said.
So what is anybody supposed to think?? Why shouldn't anyone see you as a manipulative charlatan?
Thanks for underlying my point. Then I rarely address your whinings because they are mostly hysterical like this one, based on
two logical fallacies: Poisoning the Well and Argumentum ad Populum. You're in the habit of constantly attacking personally ANY
opponent, looking out for street-figthing 'arguments'. Or else indulging into semantics and sophistry on an industrial level.
So, yes, I avoid you.

Let us analyses the ibn Khatir you brought (about 9.28)
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20980" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him (!)..... Therefore, their claimed faith in
an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets.
What a load of Sunnite's apologetic junk, directly contravening the statements in 2.136/2.285 and 3.84 (We make no distinction...)

Back to my devoted silence toward you.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by The Cat »

skynightblaze wrote:I am going to annihilate(I really mean it) this crap argument .
Thanks for the research and keeping me learning, which is what I like most of all...

But all the fuzziness in collecting the Koran simply add to my point: its compilation was the fact of a multitude, of a collegiate. Rightly so
or not, some believed their memory to be more faithful on certain points. Even Ali had his own version. This only proves how the Chinese
Whispers phenomena works. It certainly wasn't an easy task to dig into the variants, it took years. So Ibn Thabit said: ''By Allah, if he (Abu
Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains it would not have been harder for me...
''

Still the collected written copies had -each verse- validated from ''the oral testimonies of at least 2 companions'' themselves supervised by
Thabit and Umar. Even though Ali himself had his own version, he finally settled for the Uthmaic compilation, which is NOT Thabit's own
version but the most faithful, -according to the al-Qura original dialect (19.97, B.6.510)-, which was the final criterion of selection. If
incorrect, Ali would have kept his. He, Umar and Uthman being 'men of authority' as per 5.49.

Ibn Thabit wasn't alone, he had three others supervisors, according to B.6.510 (B.6.61.510):
Narrated Anas bin Malik (emphases mine):
Spoiler! :
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to 'Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthmfin, 'O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book, as Jews and the Christians did before'. So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Sa'id bin Al-'As and 'Abdur Rahman bin Hari-bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish (ie. al-Qura) as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa.
skynightblaze wrote:In ahadith verses related to stoning are mentioned to be part of quran more than 2 times.
So we have more than 2 witnesses confirming that verse of stoning
Wrong assumption. Two different lines of ahaad doesn't match two witnesses --at each level of the narration--,
each confirming the other (more so going in closer narrations), like the avoid the Chinese Whispers effect. See?

Stoning is NOT mentioned in the recognized Koran. Since it was supervised by Umar himself we must hold that these hadiths were forged.
Among countless others that is...
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

The Cat wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:your inability to address the points I made speaks volumes. You have no answers to what I said.
So what is anybody supposed to think?? Why shouldn't anyone see you as a manipulative charlatan?
Thanks for underlying my point.
What point did I underline?? State it specifically. But you won't because you hide behind self made ambiguities and anybody and everybody can see that. You hate me because I call you out on you deceptive fallacies.
The Cat wrote: Then I rarely address your whinings
Yes, when you can't answer it directly and specifically, you paint it as a whining. Why would you think that nobody can see that?? Who do you think you could possibly be fooling?? It's amazing!!
The Cat wrote: because they are mostly hysterical like this one, based on
two logical fallacies: Poisoning the Well and Argumentum ad Populum.
Why don't you simply answer the specific points that I raise?? And we all know why, including you. It's because you CAN'T answer them, so we all get to watch relatively meaningless buzzwords that you use to hide that fact. Again, just how stupid do you think people are??

The Cat wrote: You're in the habit of constantly attacking personally ANY
opponent, looking out for street-figthing 'arguments'. Or else indulging into semantics and sophistry on an industrial level.
First I point out the obvious flaws and THEN I attack the person if I think they are inherently dishonest. You can't answer the point so you attempt to hide behind the guise of being personally attacked so that you can ignore the points. Again, how stupid do you think people are?? You would get a lot less insults if you were more honest and answered the points directly, but we both know that they arer sound points and to hide that you play the game of the victim.

The Cat wrote: So, yes, I avoid you.
And for understandably dubious reasons.

The Cat wrote: Let us analyses the ibn Khatir you brought (about 9.28)
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20980" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him (!)..... Therefore, their claimed faith in
an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets.
What a load of Sunnite's apologetic junk, directly contravening the statements in 2.136/2.285 and 3.84 (We make no distinction...)
And it all ignores abrogation. Why would an honest 13th century scholar believe in abrogation in the Quran?? Is it because he didn't study it well enough? Is it because he is some sort of conspirator against Islam? Why did Allah even replace any communications from the Quran with something better?? Why did Allah even replace his past, non Quranic communications with something better?? You just completely ignore this very inconvenient truth. It's right in front of your face and you refuse to look at it. Why???? Why do you invent stories for yourself to make the obvious go away??
The Cat wrote: Back to my devoted silence toward you.
Oh, gee, you're so noble and above it all. :lol: It's a shame that no reasonably intelligent person would believe that. Hiding behind a mask of "above that" or "better than that" never works when you interact with reasonably intelligent people. Why on earth would you fancy that it does???? And if you do fancy that it does, which must be the reason you even attempt it, then what does that say about you and why should anybody have any respect for you??
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

Multiple
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 8:58 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Multiple »

skynightblaze wrote:
Multiple wrote:
Multiple wrote:Dont forget SNB you can judge the reliability and judgement of The Cat by the fact that he?/it? just LURVES Obambi.
Consider yourself unquotable SNB.
???? I was referring to the lengthy post of mine which you quoted. The page is unnecessarily becoming long and thats why I asked if you could remove my quote from your post. Just edit your post and erase what I wrote.
Yes SNB I know exactly what you meant I was just trying to inject a little humour in to the situation. So sorry if you could not see that. Maybe I should flag it with a smiley next time. :*)
Banned.

Multiple
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 8:58 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by Multiple »

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
The Cat wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:your inability to address the points I made speaks volumes. You have no answers to what I said.
So what is anybody supposed to think?? Why shouldn't anyone see you as a manipulative charlatan?
Thanks for underlying my point.


Oh, gee, you're so noble and above it all. :lol: It's a shame that no reasonably intelligent person would believe that. Hiding behind a mask of "above that" or "better than that" never works when you interact with reasonably intelligent people. Why on earth would you fancy that it does???? And if you do fancy that it does, which must be the reason you even attempt it, then what does that say about you and why should anybody have any respect for you??

MBL seems you have the CAT down to a T . This bumptious egotistical guy needs to be deflated no wonder he avoids you.
Banned.

User avatar
marduk
Posts: 1524
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:39 pm

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by marduk »

29: "Fight against such of those who have been given the Scriptures as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute [jizya tax] readily, being brought low."
Why does Allah insist on us believing in the Last Day? Why would he care if we believe in it, as long as it exists? What possible difference could it make to Allah whether or not we believe in the Last Day, or the Day of Judgment to the Persians, from whom the concept was stolen by the Jews and Arabs? This is just another thing in the endless list of why Islam makes no sense.

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Ali Sina Did You Know About This?

Post by skynightblaze »

The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:I am going to annihilate(I really mean it) this crap argument .
Thanks for the research and keeping me learning, which is what I like most of all...

But all the fuzziness in collecting the Koran simply add to my point: its compilation was the fact of a multitude, of a collegiate. Rightly so or not, some believed their memory to be more faithful on certain points. Even Ali had his own version. This only proves how the Chinese Whispers phenomena works. It certainly wasn't an easy task to dig into the variants, it took years. So Ibn Thabit said: ''By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains it would not have been harder for me...''
The fact that collection of quran is described as an "arduous task" only weakens the case for soundness of isnads of quran.So do you now agree that Quran is also a part of chinese whispers?
The Cat wrote: Still the collected written copies had -each verse- validated from ''the oral testimonies of at least 2 companions'' themselves supervised by
Thabit and Umar.
WE have a problem here because both these people were not the best teachers of quran according to muhammad. The best teachers of quran disagreed with the work of Thabit and Umar so this destroys any
credibility that quran has. I have provided plenty of evidence from answering islam site to prove that the best teachers of quran according to Muhammad disagreed with Thabit's quran and they even rejected it completely and hence the quran is a corrupted book and its isnad are weak as they lack strong support from the people considered as quranic experts.
The Cat wrote: Even though Ali himself had his own version, he finally settled for the Uthmaic compilation, which is NOT Thabit's own
version but the most faithful, -according to the al-Qura original dialect (19.97, B.6.510)-, which was the final criterion of selection. If
incorrect, Ali would have kept his. He, Umar and Uthman being 'men of authority' as per 5.49.
The other versions were ordered to be burned and that's why we have no version of quran left. People didnt settle with Uthmanic compilation willfully . They had to , because Uthaman ordered other quranic versions in float to be burned.

Btw why would Ali's version be different from the current quranic version?Even the men of authority had confusion within themselves! It speaks volumes about confusion prevailing about the quran and hence quran has to be dismissed as hearsay. I guess you should accept that isnad of quran are weak and unreliable.
The Cat wrote: Ibn Thabit wasn't alone, he had three others supervisors, according to B.6.510 (B.6.61.510):
Narrated Anas bin Malik (emphases mine):
Spoiler! :
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to 'Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthmfin, 'O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book, as Jews and the Christians did before'. So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Sa'id bin Al-'As and 'Abdur Rahman bin Hari-bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish (ie. al-Qura) as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa.
None of the above mentioned people were authentic people according to Muhammad as far expertise on quran was concerned. The work of above 3 people was discarded by reliable quranic teachers which muhammad himself had recommended.

You also seemed to have avoided comments on the rest of my post. How can we have multiple witnesses confirming the order of quran when they themselves were confused as seen in the above hadith?? Even as per your criteria quran fails the test and hence it should be discarded as an hearsay.

Keep in mind quran claims itself to be word to word dictation of God and hence changing the order of quran is also a corruption.
The Cat wrote:
skynightblaze wrote:In ahadith verses related to stoning are mentioned to be part of quran more than 2 times.
So we have more than 2 witnesses confirming that verse of stoning
Wrong assumption. Two different lines of ahaad doesn't match two witnesses --at each level of the narration--,
each confirming the other (more so going in closer narrations), like the avoid the Chinese Whispers effect. See?
Your wikipedia quote didn't say that quran had 2 witnesses at each level. It just said quran required witnesses of 2 people however I have already shown you that 9:128 -129 didn't have 2 witnesses and also there is no proof that every single verse which had 2 witnesses was put in the quran for e.g verse related to stoning. We have multiple witnesses for that verse and yet it isn't there in the quran. Now you claim that stoning as such didn't exist and thats why Umar didnt put in the quran. This is false. Read below..

If quran was formed out of multiple people agreeing within themselves then we wouldnt have different versions of quran. EVen if some verses of quran had 2 testimonies it still doesnt make the quran authentic because at the same time there were plenty of people(more than 2) disagreeing with them and hence 2 witness test cannot be taken as a sure shot test.


The Cat wrote: Stoning is NOT mentioned in the recognized Koran. Since it was supervised by Umar himself we must hold that these hadiths were forged.
Among countless others that is...
Umar deliberately didnt include it. See below..


(Muwatta Imam Malik, p.352).

"See that you do not forget the verse about stoning and say: We do not find it in the Book of Allah; the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) had ordered stoning and we too have done so, after him. By the Lord Who holds possession of my life, if people should not accuse me of adding to the Book of Allah, I would have this transcribed therein: Ash-shaikhu wash-shaikhatu ithaa zanayaa faarjumuu humaa. We have read this verse".

Again we see here that Umar and other comanions of muhammad differed on certain aspects so its more than clear that the companions including Umar were confused bunch of sh!t heads and hence quran becomes an hearsay! I guess you should stop defending quran here.

Here are some more missing verses of the quran. This was because multiple variations of quran existed and Umar and Thabit were not the best of people who could do that job. They tried hard but they failed ..

(Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.740).
A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that it had been revealed in the Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (saw) died and before that time it was found in the Qur'an.
Answering islam wrote: In another record of this incident we find that Umar added: "Verily stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery, if proof stands or pregnancy is clear or confession is made" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p.684). Both the records of the tradition in the Sahih of Bukhari and the Sirat of Ibn Ishaq add that Umar mentioned another missing verse which was once part of the kitabullah (viz. the Qur'an) which the earliest of Muhammad's companions used to recite, namely "O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief on your part to claim to be the offspring of other than your real father." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, p.540).
http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchris ... 4.html#p91" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

Post Reply